Free to View?

scotsbob

LifesLittleBargainHunter wrote: »

Maybe things will get better around these parts sometime in the afternoon-ish, when the meds have been dispensed.:eek:

LOL, good line, I like that one. :T

System

It is freeview in the sense that you do not have to pay a subscription to watch it as you do for example Sky 1.

The communication act makes no distinction on how you receive TV pictures or who from, just that if you watch it as it is transmitted then a licence is needed.

Part of the licence fee is used for the upkeep of TV aerial masts that all terrestrial channels use so ITV, Channel 4 etc do effectively get a cut of it.

BBC-Died-in-1980

(A)Right, on it's own - or with an audio amp, for use as a radio a freeview box would not need a TVL. It would though, if it were a Freeview recorder!

(B)On it's own, An old analogue TV, once you cannot recieve an analogue signal of course, will not need a TVL

Once you assemble & connect together A & B you SHOULD have a TVL.

It boils down to "In law" should you be viewing LIVE TV, however you achieve it, you should have a TVL - the enforcement of course, is quite another matter:)

The words: Freeview or Freesat or even Freesky, are more about the fact that no subcriptions or viewing cards need to be involved.

I sympathise with your views & the BBC is an outdated greedy corporation that is well past it's sell-by-date, but as they say "The law is the law"

Buzby

An analogue TV never needed a licence - it was the address to which it was 'installed', as it is the address that is registered, not the equipment. However, the analogue switch-off has at least ended one anomaly.

One of these sets - even unconnected - would be accepted by the courts as capable of viewing terrestrial broadcasts and require the address to be licenced, but not any more. However, if there is a Freeview tuner available as an accessory within the property, then as the TV would be used to display the new digital terrestrial broadcasts, the viewer becomes liable again, but not because of the TV - it is the tuner that creates the liability.

victor2

Buzby wrote: »

One of these sets - even unconnected - would be accepted by the courts as capable of viewing terrestrial broadcasts and require the address to be licenced, but not any more. However, if there is a Freeview tuner available as an accessory within the property, then as the TV would be used to display the new digital terrestrial broadcasts, the viewer becomes liable again, but not because of the TV - it is the tuner that creates the liability.

Not according to www.tvlicensing.co.uk:

If you don’t watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on
TV, on any device, you don’t need a TV Licence.

The emphasis is, and always has been AFAIK, on somebody at the address actually watching live TV.

The_Safordian

LifesLittleBargainHunter wrote: »

Ok probably a bit of an odd one, maybe not.

My thoughts / questions are related to freeview and TV licencing.
I don't know if this has been asked before, I took a little browse through a few forum pages but didn't see anything specific so here goes.

I posted this as an off the cuff idea somewhere else but now it's gotten me thinking.

Freeview is supposedly freeview isn't it? I mean there are no licence fees attached to the freeview box as I understand it but rather we pay a TV licence fee for TV equipment capable of receiving BBC broadcasts.

Well how does that now sit with people who own analogue only TVs now still? Since analogue has been switched off and the TV isn't capable of natively receiving any TV signals anymore, why do I need a licence for it?

Further more, if my free to view box is now the main receiver of the TV signals and it is the free to view box that is receiving BBC and not the TV, again how can a TV licence be applicable to something that is sold under the massively prominent title of freeview?

Personally, I don't see how a TV licence could be justified under those circumstances but that's just my thinking.



The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV

and yet a freeview box is entitled as free to view, no fees. Something can't be free and paid for at the same time.
Can't see how they can make that cover freeview boxes myself.

Thoughts anyone? I'd be interested to hear what people think..
It's probably a mad train of thought but hey, less to pay is less to pay.

It is a bit of a con really as you say it isn't Free because you have to give the BBC parasites their money first.

Greg Dyke even admitted to creating a Trojan Horse to help keep the licence fee harder to abolish

Greg Dyke has confirmed suspicions in the commercial sector that he launched the digital terrestrial TV service, Freeview, as a way of delaying the day the licence fee would be scrapped.

This is because under Mr Dyke's original plans the Freeview service would be a Trojan horse, offering free channels exclusively with no means of collecting subscription fees.

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php/topic,2.msg2.html#msg2

[Deleted User]

Ectophile wrote: »

In fact, you need a licence to watch live TV, or to record live TV, regardless of yow you receive the signal, whether it is digital or analogue, via TV aerial, satellite, cable or internet.

Not strictly true.

You don't need a licence if you watch a live programme, via the internet, if the programme isn't available via terrestrial, satellite or cable, at the same time, in the UK or Channel Islands.

Niv

LifesLittleBargainHunter wrote: »

Show me where ITV or Channel 4 or 5 or any other non BBC channel gets a cut of the licence fee that's extorted every year.

pretty sure channel 4 gets some of it.